I think it would be fun if different maps could have different gambit rules based on the map, with those rules (playtested by R&D, of course) printed right on it.

This would be pretty cool to have in effect as a scenario for each map.

But there are significant pitfalls to maps that allow too much specialization in competetive DCI play, and the kinds of things you suggest would tend to offer that. The ability to build to your map to gain a large (rather than modest) advantage. We learned at Gencon 2007 that certain maps favored or discouraged certain types of squads. The end result was that you could predict a huge proportion of game results simply by looking at who won the setup roll(s).

In 2009 we still saw a bit of that in that with the last second ban of GOWK and the legalization of Teth, we saw the rebel speeders had a significant advantage on their map, and could hold their own on other maps and thus it became the go-to choice for virtually the entire field of high-end players.

But as soon as there are two or more viable map/squad combos that dominate, you get a split where one beats the other when they win map roll and the map roll is often the last roll of the game that matters.

Silly question here... have we considered simply applying the chess-clock to this game? It seems that a lot of the current problems related to highly defensive play styles go away if you introduce the clock in such a fashion. Has anyone ever tried it?

Silly question here... have we considered simply applying the chess-clock to this game? It seems that a lot of the current problems related to highly defensive play styles go away if you introduce the clock in such a fashion. Has anyone ever tried it?

The cost of chess clocks is the first issue. Not worth discussing after that.

But I've long thought that Engineer's idea (borrowed from DDM 1.0 I think) of having multiple formats you must play with the same squad over the course of a tourney does really interesting things to the metagame.

I did not think anyone liked those ideas. Would anyone like me to write them out in detail for discussion?

Silly question here... have we considered simply applying the chess-clock to this game? It seems that a lot of the current problems related to highly defensive play styles go away if you introduce the clock in such a fashion. Has anyone ever tried it?

The cost of chess clocks is the first issue. Not worth discussing after that.

Well... valid point. Still, that's something that at least one competitive game has overcome... And, most players who compete spend on heck of a lot more on their equipment (ie figs) than that...

I just don't think Chess clocks would change how the SWM game is played.They would not expedite or encourage, "battle" the sacrificing or exchanging pieces.I imagine games would still go to time and players would still win on points.

My concern is that adding chess clocks would only encourage the "clock" mentality.Chess has a finite set of moves and the board is small (compared to a SWM map.)I "get" how they work in chess, but how would chess clocks work in SWM?

What time control mechanism would be used for SWM tournament play?Would the clock run 1hr. and warning/ DQ be given if a player went over a certain time?Would a turn or phase be forfeit immediately at a certain amount of time? Would players be given equal amounts of time (30 mins)?If one player reached time (30 min) would the game suddently end?

I'm anxious to try out the King of the Hill format. It sounds like it could be fun.

It would encorage people to make moves in a timely fashion and not dawdle on inconsequential stuff like they do now.

If you run out of time, you lose, just like Chess. You are free to manage your time however you choose. It's not an egg timer on turns/phases.

I'd go with 32 minutes on each player's clock and a 2 minute time out for things like calling a judge or other dispute/discussion that shouldn't be on one player's clock. This means if both players play within 5 minutes of their share the game goes the full 60 minutes and the clocks have no effect other than keeping the time shared fairly.

But due to cost it'll never be a requirement. It would be pretty cool to have it as an option that a judge can put on any game he deems necessary due to slow play issues.

I just don't think Chess clocks would change how the SWM game is played.They would not expedite or encourage, "battle" the sacrificing or exchanging pieces.I imagine games would still go to time and players would still win on points.

My concern is that adding chess clocks would only encourage the "clock" mentality.Chess has a finite set of moves and the board is small (compared to a SWM map.)I "get" how they work in chess, but how would chess clocks work in SWM?

What time control mechanism would be used for SWM tournament play?Would the clock run 1hr. and warning/ DQ be given if a player went over a certain time?Would a turn or phase be forfeit immediately at a certain amount of time? Would players be given equal amounts of time (30 mins)?If one player reached time (30 min) would the game suddently end?

I'm anxious to try out the King of the Hill format. It sounds like it could be fun.

I assure, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, as I have no evidence to support my belief that this might actually help... but to answer...

1) Actually, like chess, the games have infinite moves. Chess has a more constrained board, and indentical sets of pieces... but otherwise the differences aren't as much as you may think.

2) Time control would be as it is now... time limit... points at the end. The difference is that if one player ran out before time was called, that would result in forfeiture. The goal of this would be to encourage faster play.

3) Yes, in my imaginary world, players would get equal time. When one ran out, the game would end, but not positively for that player.

4) If the goal were 90 minute rounds, then each player would be given 60 minutes. For a player to lose on time, they would have to have consumed at least 2/3 of the total time... which feels pretty fair to me.

I agree, King of the Hill format could be fun... but I'm honestly trying to join the search for a solution to current tournament play. For me, there is literally nothing less fun than the all-too-common tactic of "get a few points ahead, and then play as slowly as you can get away with to run time out".

We've talked about chess clocks in our group for a while but, costs aside, there's a couple of other issues that have been brought up...

Say each player gets 30 minutes of play time. Player 1 has spent 20 of his minutes and Player 2 just spent all 30 of his. Player 1 should, in fairness, be able to use up his remaining 10 minutes of play time without any interaction from Player 2. I imagine that this would certainly encourage players to play faster, if they are faced with the prospect of a large chunk of time where they will not be able to act/react. But is that fair/likely/reasonable?

So let's say it's Player 1's turn and he attacks Player 2's character who has Evade. Player 2 pauses, picks up his d20, changes his mind and decides to use his 'lucky' d20 (which he has to fish out of his little box o' dice) and, finally, rolls for Evade. He rolls a 9 but, lucky for him, his character has Force Points so now he thinks about whether or not he should spend a FP to re-roll that failed Evade or not... after a few seconds he decides to take the damage and hang on to the Force Points and tells Player 1 as much. So Player 1 makes his Twin... do you see where this is going? Player 2 is running down the clock on Player 1's side of the table. Unless Player 1 is expected to hit the button as soon as he rolls his attack and player 2 is expected to run his own time down for each decision (which can get pretty ridiculous when you have characters with Double + Twin + Extra Attack on the opposing side of the table). In the interest of being fair, though, that would be the only way you could do it. And that seems like an area that's just ripe for all sorts of abuse.

That's just 2 of the issues that have come up. As far as the cost of a Chess clock... you people need to watch more do-it-yourself type television programs. I can put together a digital chess clock for less than 4 bucks. In fact, I'll do just that and make the detailed instructions available for anyone who wants to give it a go.

So let's say it's Player 1's turn and he attacks Player 2's character who has Evade. Player 2 pauses, picks up his d20, changes his mind and decides to use his 'lucky' d20 (which he has to fish out of his little box o' dice) and, finally, rolls for Evade. He rolls a 9 but, lucky for him, his character has Force Points so now he thinks about whether or not he should spend a FP to re-roll that failed Evade or not... after a few seconds he decides to take the damage and hang on to the Force Points and tells Player 1 as much. So Player 1 makes his Twin... do you see where this is going? Player 2 is running down the clock on Player 1's side of the table. Unless Player 1 is expected to hit the button as soon as he rolls his attack and player 2 is expected to run his own time down for each decision (which can get pretty ridiculous when you have characters with Double + Twin + Extra Attack on the opposing side of the table). In the interest of being fair, though, that would be the only way you could do it. And that seems like an area that's just ripe for all sorts of abuse.

This is precisely what I would be most worried about. Most of the guys that I know personally, and enjoy playing against at things like GenCon, we wouldn't need a chess clock anyways. It's the people I don't know, and don't know whether they might try to abuse that clock, that worry me.

Yes, it's a possible solution, but it really opens up a whole new can of worms. And, to take it a step further, instead of actually speeding up the game, now you're adding in an extra thing that people have to do EVERY time it's their turn to do something. They have to remember to hit the clock switch.

And while there are a lot of similarities between Chess and SWMs, I think Chess is SO much more simple, that a chess clock actually works there quite well. I just don't see it translating to SWMs nearly as easy.

_________________-AaronMand'alor"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."

Say each player gets 30 minutes of play time. Player 1 has spent 20 of his minutes and Player 2 just spent all 30 of his. Player 1 should, in fairness, be able to use up his remaining 10 minutes of play time without any interaction from Player 2.

If player 2 spent all 30 of his, the game ends and he loses. He ran out of time. But say that's 29 instead and he's just forced to make quick moves. He used all 30 of his, now the opponent who used his time more wisely early is the problem? Seems like a non-issue. (But in general, I'd guess that a faster player will continue to play at that speed barring a tough decision.)

Quote:

So let's say it's Player 1's turn and he attacks Player 2's character who has Evade. Player 2 pauses, picks up his d20, changes his mind and decides to use his 'lucky' d20 (which he has to fish out of his little box o' dice) and, finally, rolls for Evade.

These rolls and decisions will necessarily have to be made quickly under this system. Any manipulation here will be considered stalling and thus cheating/DQ. Try at own risk.

PS, I'd be interested in hearing how to make a cheap chess clock. They have some unique features (but perhaps there's an equally unique/simple solution to get that out of standard digital timers.)

I would say have the judges, themselves, keep the match time; much like they do in soccer -- giving "extra time" to the matches that need a judge's ruling (no more than 2 minutes in extra time). That said, each match -- not the player should get two or three (still thinking that out) judge's rulings (assistance) per match -- so players should use them wisely.

But there are significant pitfalls to maps that allow too much specialization in competetive DCI play, and the kinds of things you suggest would tend to offer that. The ability to build to your map to gain a large (rather than modest) advantage. We learned at Gencon 2007 that certain maps favored or discouraged certain types of squads. The end result was that you could predict a huge proportion of game results simply by looking at who won the setup roll(s).

True, and that's why I said you could easily just disregard gambit rules for DCI play.

That said, what if the gambit rules worked the opposite way? Instead of making a map unbalanced by making it an obvious match for a certain kind of squad, a gambit zone benefit could be tailored to make the map more balanced. For example, the gambit zone on a too-open map could be a deflection field that provides cover, or something to that effect.

It is the game option that is my new idea. Straight gambit, where you get 5 points for every round you have a character in gambit, is gone. Instead each side rolls a D20 refers to a chart listing 10 different gambit options. Whatever they roll is the gambit rule they have to follow. It is likely that you and your opponent will have different rules for gaining gambit.

Of course, I’m not entirely certain what each one of them should be. But the intention was to force a variety of builds, and to make the options drive faster play. Here are some examples:

At the end of the round:1-2 you get X points for each character you have in gambit.3-4 you get X points for each character you’re opponent has in gambit.5-6 you get X points if you have LOS the center point of the gambit area.7-8 you get X points if you have a character in gambit who has not moved during the round.9-10. You get X points if characters under your control occupy the majority of the gambit squares.11-12. You get X points only if you and your opponent both have characters in the gambit squares.13-14: You get X points if none of your characters have LOS to an opponent, or to gambit.15-16: You get X points for each character of yours who has LOS to an opponent who is in gambit.

The point structure should drive the desire to have many rounds. For example, 1-2 may be worth 1 point, while 9-10 be worth 3 points. Thus, player A would get 3 points if she had 3 figs in gambit, but player B would need to get 4 figs in place to get 3 points.

_________________"All through our history the Black Company has suffered the ingratitude of our employers. Usually those blackguards received ample cause to regret their villainy."

I now this has most likely been thought of before,but what if theres two gambi zones at the edges of the map and in order to score you have to get to the other side of the map,and you get an addtionial point of each piece of your sqaud you have in the gambit zone.

Note you can't deny the other player by leaving pieces behind.

_________________STOP IT! STOP IT! CAN'T YOU SEE THIS CONSTANT FIGHTING IS TEARING US ALL APART?-Carl

Things i've said in the past that got dismissed and now are being talked about:restricting formats by setSome chosing not to play the game if and when another company picks it up without the current mechanics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum